Dismissed

Sri Chandrashekar Alias Chandru S/O Madivalappa Mudalinganavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2024CRL.P/103295/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail petition by accused No.7 in a murder case arising out of a panchayat-related assault that killed Deepak Patadari. The court found witness statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C attributing overt acts to him, held a prima facie case existed given heinous offences punishable with death or life imprisonment, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Chandrashekar Alias Chandru S/O… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 103295 OF 2024

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI CHANDRASHEKAR @ CHANDRU S/O MADIVALAPPA MUDALINGANAVAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSAMANI ONI RAYANAL VILLAGE, TQ: HUBBALLI DISTRICT DHARWAD – 580 024.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI IRANAGOUDA K KABBUR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYANA MURTHY RAJASHRI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CID POILCE H AND B WING CID HEAD QUARTERS BENGALURU AND OLD HUBBALLI P.S. R/BY IT’S HIGH COURT ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SMT. GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439 OF Cr.P.C. (483 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED No.7 ON BAIL IN OLD HUBBALLI P.S. CRIME No.110/2022 (S.C.No.5038/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶20

OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD SITTING AT HUBBALLI) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 114, 143, 147, 148, 120(B), 341, 302 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)

¶25

This petition is filed by the petitioner – accused No.7

¶26

under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking grant of bail in S.C.No.5038/2023 arising out of Crime No.110/2022 of Old Hubballi Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) .

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that, one Sri.Sanjay, S/o Sri.Shivaji Patadari of Gangivala village has filed a complaint stating that about 1½ years ago, his brother Sri.Deepak Patadari was elected as a member of Gangivala

¶28

Grama Panchayath. His elder brother by name Sri.Deepak

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶30

Patadari was carrying on good work to his village, his brother Sri.Deepak had love affair with one girl of Meti family and had married her sometime back. About 15 days prior to filing of the complaint, no confidence resolution was moved against the President and Vice President of Rayanal Grama Panchayath. When his brother Sri.Deepak Patadari (deceased) was in his house, one Sri.Basavaraj Maradagi (accused No.8) of Rayanal village came along with the complainant on the complainant's motorcycle to his village and he has introduced Sri.Basavaraj Maradagi to his elder brother i.e., Sri.Deepak Patidar and went inside his house. It is further stated that on 04.07.2022 till 10.00 p.m., the complainant's brother Deepak and Sri.Basavaraj Maradagi were sitting in his house discussing regarding Panchayath office and at about 10.15 p.m., Sri.Basavaraj requested his brother that he wants to go back to his village Rayanal and he has no motorcycle and hence, requested the complainant's brother to drop him to his village Rayanal, for which his brother agreed and went on his bullet motorcycle along with Sri.Basavaraj Maradagi

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶32

to drop him to his village. It is further stated that in the night at about 10.30 p.m., when the complainant was at his home, his brother's friends Sri.Paramananda Shyamgundi and Sri.Rudrappa Shettenagouda telephoned him and told that all the petitioners and other persons have assaulted his brother Sri.Deepak Patadari with sword and knife and asked him to come urgently. Immediately, when complainant and his friend Sri.Arun Balad reached Rayanal village, Sri.Paramananda Shyamgundi and Sri.Gurunath Chandaragi had taken the injured to KIMS hospital, Hubballi and admitted him in KIMS hospital, Hubballi on 04.07.2022 at about 11.30 p.m., for treatment. The complainant enquired the doctor, who told that he is not in a condition to speak and his brother thereafter succumbed to the injuries on 05.07.2022 at about 02.40 a.m. Thereafter, the complainant enquiring with the elders went to the police station and lodged the complaint. The said complaint came to be registered in Crime No.110/2022 of Old Hubballi Police Station for the

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶34

offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,148, 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶35

The petitioner – accused No.7 who is in judicial custody, earlier had filed bail petition before this Court and the same came to be rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner – accused No.7 filed bail application before the Sessions Court in S.C.No.5038/2023 and the same came to be rejected. Therefore, the petitioner – accused No.7 is before this Court seeking bail.

¶36

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.7 and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent – State.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.7 would contend that, earlier the petitioner – accused No.7 had filed bail petition at the crime stage and it came to be rejected, whereunder, he has been given liberty to file the petition seeking bail, after filing the charge sheet. He further submits that accused Nos.5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶39

have been granted bail. He further submits that this Court while rejecting the bail petition of accused No.3, has fixed the time limit of one year for completing the trial by order dated 06.08.2024, but still the charge is not framed and trial is not commenced. He submits that in the complaint and in the F.I.R, name of the petitioner – accused No.7 is not there. CWs.6 to 10 who were cited as eye witnesses are not the residents of Rayanal village, but they are the residents of Hubballi and they are friends of the complainant and therefore, they are the chance witnesses. CWs.6 and 7, as per the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, are not the eye witnesses and as per their statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, they are the eye witnesses to the incident. The said 164 Cr.P.C statements are recorded after twenty days of the incident. Their statements are also recorded by the police on 02.09.2022 and 24.09.2022. CW8 has not stated about this petitioner – accused No.7 and there is a delay in recording the statement. CW10 in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has not stated about this

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶41

petitioner – accused No.7. CWs.11 and 12 have not stated anything about this petitioner – accused No.7 in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. CWs.13 and 14, as per their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, are not the eye witnesses to the incident. The petitioner – accused No.7 is a married man having wife and two children and old aged parents. Charge sheet contains 64 charge sheet witnesses. As the charge is not yet framed, it will take a considerable time for completion of trial. Learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.7 has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex

¶42

Court in the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. State of Maharashtra and Another decided on 03.07.2024 and placed reliance on Paragraph No.18, which reads thus;

¶43

“18 Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those

¶44

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶45

factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.”

¶46

On these grounds, he prays for allowing the petition and grant of bail to the petitioner – accused No.7.

¶47

Per contra , learned High Court Government Pleader

¶48

for the respondent – State would contend that CWs.6 to 10 in their statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C has specifically stated the acts of the petitioner – accused No.7 assaulting the deceased. CWs.18 to 24 are also the eye witnesses to the incident, wherein CW18 has specifically stated the overt acts of this petitioner – accused No.7 throwing stone on the deceased. Talwar is recovered at the instance of the petitioner – accused No.7. The post-mortem report would indicate that the deceased had sustained 49 injuries and cause of his death is hemorrhage and shock as a result of the injuries sustained. The offences alleged against the petitioner – accused No.7 are heinous offences which are punishable

¶49

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶50

with death or imprisonment for life. If the petitioner – accused No.7 is granted bail, there is a threat to the prosecution witnesses. With this, she prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶51

Having heard the learned counsels, the Court has perused the charge sheet records and the other materials placed on record.

¶52

The statement of CWs.6 and 7 have been recorded

¶53

by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C and in that, they have specifically stated the overt acts of this petitioner – accused No.7 assaulting the deceased. Merely because there is a delay in recording the statements of the witnesses, it is not a ground for grant of bail. The statements of the witnesses already recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C and also by the learned Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C would indicate that this petitioner – accused No.7 was present on the spot at the time of the incident and assaulted the deceased. CW18 who is the resident of Rayanal village, in her statement

¶54

10 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:17850 CRL.P No. 103295 of 2024

¶55

recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C has specifically stated the acts of this petitioner – accused No.7 assaulting the deceased with stone. Merely because the trial is not yet commenced, is not a ground for grant of bail. The offences alleged are heinous in nature which are punishable with death or imprisonment for life. Considering the entire charge sheet material, there is a prima facie case against this petitioner – accused No.7 for the offences alleged against him. There are no grounds made out for grant of bail. Hence, the following;

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The petition is dismissed .

¶58

Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE

¶59

¶60

List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1

Sri Chandrashekar Alias Chandru S/O Madivalappa Mudalinganavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Chandrashekar Alias Chandru S/O Madivalappa Mudalinganavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanna L a Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Padma Betageri W/O. Umesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath S/O Kalakappa Marad Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Ajaruddin S/O Abdul Hameed Vs State of Karnataka

Sabreen Taj Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Shakunthala R Vs State of Karnataka